Election 04

[Seppi2112]

Hmm... been waiting to reply so I guess there's no time like the present...

The difference lies in his personal life or his statements about America. If a person tells me he lives in Southern California, why should I disbelieve that? If on the other hand he's telling me that Lockheed makes WMDs (they dont), then yeah I don't buy it without proof.

On a side note, I'm sorry if it turned out that way but I don't completely support Moore's ideas. I like him because he says things that piss me off and challenge me too. There were a lot of good points in Bowling for Columbine, whether he made them up or not. I don't agree with him on everything but I agree with his sentiment- that Bush needs to go.

My vote was for Clark too TH. I can list myriad reasons why. Tell me some of the good things Bush has done in the past four years, because I can't think of any and most of my pro-W friends can't either. I don't know about the rest of you, but he was so absent that I barely even knew we had a president before 9/11, lol.

[danlo]

(Is it just me or is it about time this topic was moved to the Think Tank? )

[A Gunslinger]

I liked Clark myself. He may wind up as VP, btw. It is likely he, Joh nEdwards, or I hope... McCain, though that would be a (good) shock.

[dANdeLION]

After much soul searching and web surfing, I found out that it's true; conservative is evil. I apologise for wanting to vote foe Bush. I apologize for wanting to interfere with the government of Iraq in hopes of attaining cheap oil. What brought about this change in heart, you ask? Well, it was this: www.evilconservatives.com/

[A Gunslinger]

After much soul searching and web surfing, I found out that it's true; conservative is evil. I apologise for wanting to vote foe Bush. I apologize for wanting to interfere with the government of Iraq in hopes of attaining cheap oil. What brought about this change in heart, you ask? Well, it was this: www.evilconservatives.com/

No one accused you of evil, my friend. Billy silly? Perhaps.

[dANdeLION]

If you don't want to eat that puny gun of yours, never call me Bill again.

[A Gunslinger]

....er, BEING silly. heh.

[dANdeLION]

Oh. Got it. Carry on, then.

[[Syl]]

And please don't even bother telling me you're a Republican and then spout off that liberal drivel; it insults my intelligence.

Dan, you do know it is quite possible to be a liberal republican? It was a recognized political party at one time. Many people point to Arnold as a current example of one. McCain is a moderate republican, and there's even such things as conservative democrats.

[Brinn]

True Syl, but I'm almost positive that being a fan of Michael Moore automatically disqualifies you from party consideration...

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Tenet Resigns

I was just thinking about CIA Director Tenet in the shower. No, not in that way. But I was thinking about why Bush hadn't fired him yet. He's an awfully convenient scapegoat, but Bush keeps insisting he's done a terrific job. It's been speculated that Tenet has something on Bush. Maybe now we'll hear what it is.

Personally, I don't blame Tenet for the intel failures of 9/11 and WMD. I blame the Bush administration. The CIA is just a resource, which the administration mis-utilized. The Vice President went out and gathered intelligence on his own - a practice called "stovepiping" - from sources such as the Iraqi National Congress (which became the Iraqi Governing Council) and effectively sidestepping the CIA. Of course the CIA has made mistakes, I just don't pin ALL the blame on them.

What really, really bugged me about all this is that nobody in the White House seemed to consider the motives of groups like this, or the motives of Saddam himself. Hell, even al Qaeda - as we are constantly reminded, their motivation is "terrorists hate freedom". Give me a break. If I had written an essay about the causes of 9/11 in my high school American history class (had 9/11 happened before then), and I said it was because "terrorists hate freedom", I'd have gotten an F.

What was the motivation for the Iraqi National Congress? They wanted to be back in power in Iraq. So they told us what we wanted to hear, we didn't bother to check it out, and they got what they wanted. (For a while, the Governing Council is no more as of a few days ago, and only a few members are part of the new transitional government).

Even Saddam's motivation - why, the administration asked, wouldn't Saddam let the UN inspectors in if he doesn't have WMDs? Therefore he must have WMDs, right? No. Letting the UN in would be a sign of weakness. He didn't want to appear weak. Why did I understand this when nobody in the White House did? I'm just some guy who watches the news too much.

That's my Iraq war post, stay tuned for my 9/11 intel failure post ;)

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Here I present a short timeline. No editorializing, you make up your own mind. I'll even do some fact checking so I'm not totally talking out of my ass ;)

July 2001: Bush attends the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Administration officials were warned of a terrorist plot to assassinate Bush and other heads of state by flying airplanes into the building.

August 6th, 2001: Bush (on vacation in Crawford) receives daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". It specifically lists New York City as a potential target.

September 11th, 2001: First plane hits WTC, Bush comments "That's some bad pilot." and proceeds to read to second graders. Supposedly Tenet said: "Oh, I hope that wasn't the terrorist training to fly in the U.S."

Since then, Condi Rice and Rumsfeld have both said, on several occasions, that "nobody could have predicted that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles." Both made the same retraction: that they personally could not have predicted airplanes-as-missiles.

[Brinn]

July 2001: Bush attends the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Administration officials were warned of a terrorist plot to assassinate Bush and other heads of state by flying airplanes into the building.

Can you provide me with a source backing this assertion? Unless I’m mistaken and you can produce a more direct source I believe the first mention of this was in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) but I cannot locate the primary source and have this info through secondary sources.

August 6th, 2001: Bush (on vacation in Crawford) receives daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". It specifically lists New York City as a potential target.

Notice that the FAZ states “Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified. However, there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.”and also goes on to state “German intelligence fears that in coming days planes will be hijacked in Europe and the Near East, and that there is no sure way to protect against it.”

Given this information what would you have done had you been President at the time?

Richard Clarke, in his testimony to the 9/11 commission, noted that the administration was aware of the possibility of an Al Q attack using planes. When asked if the Bush administration, following all of Clarke’s recommendations, could have prevented the attacks Clark responded “No.”. As Madeline Albright has noted on several occasions when asked why the Clinton administration had not acted on intelligence, the intelligence must be actionable. The info we had was too vague and non-specific. The fact is we live in a free society and the limitations on our freedom that would have been required to safeguard the country cannot be imposed without sacrificing a measure of personal freedom. If people are opposed to the Patriot act now how would they have felt about more restrictive limitations prior to 9/11!?!?!

Thus I have made up my mind. There was nothing that could have reasonable been done to prevent the attacks given the intelligence and the laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism prior to 9/11.

What really, really bugged me about all this is that nobody in the White House seemed to consider the motives of groups like this, or the motives of Saddam himself. Hell, even al Qaeda - as we are constantly reminded, their motivation is "terrorists hate freedom".

I would be very interested to hear your view on terrorist motives. You state that “hatred of freedom” is shallow and meaningless yet you don’t expand on alternative motive. Don’t get me wrong, I also see that explanation as simplistic but it is certainly not that far off the mark.

I have noted in a previous post that I believe the term and notion of a “War on terror” should be discarded and advocate acknowledgement that what we are truly engaged in a war against radical Islam. From a radical Islamic perspective you are either a part of Dar al Islam (House of Islam) or Dar al Harb (House of War). There is no middle ground. Historian Bernard Lewis explains that the logic of Islam does not recognize the permanent existence of a polity outside of islam and that in time all mankind must either accept islam or submit to Islamic rule. The struggle between the believers and the kaffirs (infidels) is known as Jihad and this notion of active violent struggle against the kaffirs permeates the idealogy. Ibn Khaldun, an influential Islamic scholar notes in his book The Muqaddimah that “In the Muslim community, holy war is a religious duty because of the obligation to convert everyone to Islam either by persuasion or force”. Therefore, IMHO, the root of radical islamic hatred in no more complex than the fact that we are not muslim and do not subscribe to muslim practices. I will take this a little deeper…western ideals are considered subversive and cannot coexist within the theistic society of Islam. From the radical perspective, the values of the west and Islam are mutually exclusive. Egyptian philosopher Sayyid Qutb sums up the situation in simple terms: The west separates religion from society and that is unacceptable to fundamental islam. In the west religion does not have direct control over government, law or science whereas Islam is a way of life based upon divine governance of the universe and provides the entire framework for muslim life. In fundamental islam, religious, political and economic decisions are based upon the Koran and sharia law alone. Western society is based upon freedom and seperation of church and state whereas Islam is based upon virtue and religious authority. Democracy derives political authority from the people whereas islam divines political authority from god. To the fundamentalist, these radically opposed ideals are antithetical and cannot be cannot be compromised thus either the west will prevail or islam will prevail. IMHO, it truly is a hatred of the freedom that we derive from democracy. A hatred of people who ignore the will of god and instead govern through mutual consent. This, IMHO, provides the motivation for jihad through terrorism.

Your turn. What do you think motivates the terrorists?

[kevinswatch]

Nader. (Thumbs up icon).-jay

[duchess of malfi]

Thought this article and statistics on American voting patterns was interesting.
aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.a ... 0909990023

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Can you provide me with a source backing this assertion? Unless I’m mistaken and you can produce a more direct source I believe the first mention of this was in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) but I cannot locate the primary source and have this info through secondary sources.

I can't find any direct sources, just a few news articles and a LOT of conspiracy theory. That Echelon stuff sounds pretty farfetched to me (not that I doubt its existence though ;) Here's a UK article that attributes the warning to the president of Egypt on June 13, 2001. The article is dated September 27th.

Even if Mubarak's warning was unsubstantiated, he still stated the scenario of planes-as-missiles. I think Clarke mentioned the possiblity in '97 or so. Tom freaking Clancy wrote a damn BOOK about it. And Condi keeps saying nobody could have predicted this method of attack.

Notice that the FAZ states “Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified. However, there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.”and also goes on to state “German intelligence fears that in coming days planes will be hijacked in Europe and the Near East, and that there is no sure way to protect against it.”

Given this information what would you have done had you been President at the time?

I would have at least let the FAA know we were on alert if I had any reason to believe terrorists would use planes as weapons - and I think Bush had plenty of reason to believe that was the case. Those planes were monitored at all times, the flight controllers knew they were going off course, but nobody told them they should keep an eye out for anything suspicious. If they had, they could have gotten word to officials sooner. Those planes could have been shot down.

Hell, Bush could have scrambled some jets as soon as the first plane hit. Instead he read to second graders. He had been warned for months something might happen - Tenet's "hair was on fire".

If people are opposed to the Patriot act now how would they have felt about more restrictive limitations prior to 9/11!?!?!

They didn't need a Patriot Act to stop 9/11. They just needed to pay attention. In the 9/11 hearings Condi said Bush was "tired of swatting flies". I think it was either Kerrey or Ben-Veniste who asked just what flies Bush had been swatting. He never even met with his top counterterrorism official until AFTER 9/11. Cheney was put in charge of national security and never had a meeting, IIRC. Terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration. And Condi Rice was scheduled to make a speech on 9/11 about missile defense. They were still stuck in the cold war.

Thus I have made up my mind. There was nothing that could have reasonable been done to prevent the attacks given the intelligence and the laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism prior to 9/11.

I agree with that. But it wasn't just Clinton, it was Bush too.

I would be very interested to hear your view on terrorist motives. You state that “hatred of freedom” is shallow and meaningless yet you don’t expand on alternative motive. Don’t get me wrong, I also see that explanation as simplistic but it is certainly not that far off the mark.

[snipped Islam stuff]

Your turn. What do you think motivates the terrorists?

Well bin Laden got his start protesting the American military presense in Saudi Arabia, the site of Islam's holiest shrines. He's pretty pissed at the Saudi government, his family, for their complicity. Even now al Qaeda attacks targets in Saudi Arabia, and it's certainly not for their freedom ;)

I'm sure the average al Qaeda recruit goes for all that fundamentalist Islamic stuff. I do think it's a mistake to think that all Muslims buy into that - after all the bible has a lot of dirty laundry too that not all Christians buy into.

I think they hate our culture, and our cultural dominance. Our freedom is just one aspect of our culture though. You could say it's the foundation of our culture - and in that respect then yes, terrorists hate freedom. But I don't think they consider it that way. They hate our society, which they perceive as decadent. Flaunted sexuality, drugs and alcohol, Hollywood, even gay marriage probably pisses them off as much as any fundie here at home. (In fact I don't see much difference in the fundamentalist Islamic and fundamentalist Christian ideals, except as a matter of degree.) Add to all that the religious stuff. It's probably easier to list all the things they don't hate about us. But I don't think they spend a lot of time dissing the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically, or the fact we have elections.

Of course I don't even know any Muslims, let alone extremists, and I've never been to the Middle East, so I'm basically talking out of my ass. But I still think "terrorists hate freedom" is an irresponsible oversimplification.

btw... I think the state of Islam today is similar to the state of Christianity during the middle ages... remember that Islam is about 500 years younger. There's a chance it will modernize and mellow as time goes on, probably faster in this modern age. I really think that "Islam taking over the world" stuff is bull. (The other thing I've noticed is that only Christians seem to get worked up over things like monuments of the Ten Commandments, not Jews. I think that's another sign of how religions mature with age.)

Let's see if this stirs up some hornets... ;)

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Nader. (Thumbs up icon).-jay

I gave that guy my vote last time, and I wish I could take it back. If I ever see him I'm gonna kick his ass ;)

I think somebody mentioned a possible Kerry/McCain ticket earlier. I would love to see that. McCain kicks ass - if it had been him vs. Gore in 2000 I would have voted Republican for the first time ever ;) I'm still hoping against hope for a miracle here. They could keep Colin Powell around and actually let him do his job this time. And Wesley Clark for Secretary of Defense :)

[A Gunslinger]

Nader. (Thumbs up icon).-jay

I gave that guy my vote last time, and I wish I could take it back. If I ever see him I'm gonna kick his ass

I think somebody mentioned a possible Kerry/McCain ticket earlier. I would love to see that. McCain kicks ass - if it had been him vs. Gore in 2000 I would have voted Republican for the first time ever I'm still hoping against hope for a miracle here. They could keep Colin Powell around and actually let him do his job this time. And Wesley Clark for Secretary of Defense

Your anaylsis of the roots of terror is dead on my friend. You articulated a postion that I have been trying to for months. I always get too wrapped up in trying to explain the socio-political complexities of the ISlamic fundamentalists vs. Islam on the whole. Thank you for your insights.

I believe it was me that brought to bear the Kerry/McCain ticket, but doubt it'll happen. I, too would have voted for McCain had Rove/Bush not slandered and destroyed McCain in South Carolina, thereby killing his candicacy...but I voted for Gore, not Nader (who apperently has sadly lost his mind).

I supported Wes Clark, then Edwards. I strongly support Kerry, beleiving him to be a man of reason, or at least the ability to reason. Almost anyone is better than the fundamentalist we have now.

Anyway...great postings!!!!

[Brinn]

Even if Mubarak's warning was unsubstantiated, he still stated the scenario of planes-as-missiles. I think Clarke mentioned the possiblity in '97 or so. Tom freaking Clancy wrote a damn BOOK about it. And Condi keeps saying nobody could have predicted this method of attack.

Anyone who has ever watched a WWII documentary or war movie understands the concept of planes as missles (Kamikaze). If you want to flog Condi for her choice of words that's fine but the true issue is what could have been done to prevent it?

If they [the FAA] had [been alerted to be aware of anything suspicious], they could have gotten word to officials sooner. Those planes could have been shot down.

You can truly say that with a straight face?!?! Imagine the backlash and repurcussions had a civilian passenger jet (or four) been shot down by the US military with the administration's consent and based upon suspicions and vague intelligence. In hindsight it's easy to say but to take that kind of drastic preventative measure prior to the disaster would have been a disaster in itself. What you prescribe was never an option and no amount of "paying attention" was going to change that fact.

Well bin Laden got his start protesting the American military presense in Saudi Arabia, the site of Islam's holiest shrines. He's pretty pissed at the Saudi government, his family, for their complicity. Even now al Qaeda attacks targets in Saudi Arabia, and it's certainly not for their freedom

Follow the chain of logic. Certainly they do not attack the KSA because of their freedom but they do attack the Saudi's because they view them as complicit with the west. It is the Saudi royals who allow the US to use the holy land for military bases. If encroachment of the west is the fear of radical islam than the KSA is merely a proxy for the west. It all goes back to a fear of western thought and the contamination of the islamic lifestyle. If there was no USA would the KSA still be a target?

I think they hate our culture, and our cultural dominance. Our freedom is just one aspect of our culture though. You could say it's the foundation of our culture - and in that respect then yes, terrorists hate freedom. But I don't think they consider it that way. They hate our society, which they perceive as decadent. Flaunted sexuality, drugs and alcohol, Hollywood, even gay marriage probably pisses them off as much as any fundie here at home. (In fact I don't see much difference in the fundamentalist Islamic and fundamentalist Christian ideals, except as a matter of degree.) Add to all that the religious stuff. It's probably easier to list all the things they don't hate about us. But I don't think they spend a lot of time dissing the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically, or the fact we have elections.

All the elements of our culture that you list arise out of our right to express our individuality. The decadence, the sexual freedom, the right to choose one's life partner are all expressions of freedom that are supported by secular society. Whether fundamentalist Islamics "consider it that way" or not is moot. The simple fact is that the things they hate are the direct result of respect for individual rights and subordination of church to state. You can couch your words or spin it any way you like but when you peel away the rhetoric and the trappings you see that individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and freedom of the individual unconstrained by religion are the root cause of the problems.

even gay marriage probably pisses them off as much as any fundie here at home. (In fact I don't see much difference in the fundamentalist Islamic and fundamentalist Christian ideals, except as a matter of degree.)

That is the understatement of understatements. Read up on Sharia law and its view on homosexuality. Your comparison of fundamental christianity and Islam, even with the "matter of degree" qualification you've added is ludicrous. The vast majority of fundamental Christians oppose homosexuality but do not advocate torture or execution. Fundamental Islam and Sharia law condemn homosexuality and advocate imprisonment, torture and execution as appropriate punishment for practicing it. I guess you could say that they both dislike homosexuality and the difference lies in the degree or severity of response but that's like saying the difference between a splinter and open heart surgery is only a matter of degree. It may be true at the most basic level but it is not indicative of the drastic differences that truly exist.

btw... I think the state of Islam today is similar to the state of Christianity during the middle ages... remember that Islam is about 500 years younger. There's a chance it will modernize and mellow as time goes on, probably faster in this modern age.

I see no evidence of reformation whatsoever. What makes you think radical Islam will mellow besides a vague hope or desire to see as much? Until islam secularizes education and closes the madrases, allows for scholarly criticism of the Koran instead of crying "infidel" at every occasion, accepts religious tolerance instead of forcing compliance through fear and persecution, and encourages democracy over theocracy and/or tyranny you will not see the reformation you hope for. And that's no bull!

[danlo]

Go back to England Richard!